THIS STUDY was
begun in 1938. It started with one of those incidental observations
that occasionally end up proving exceptionally fruitful. Some
fifteen years later the material had more or less become organized
into a tentative philosophy of history. Shortly afterwards it
was presented as a paper to a Scientific Affiliation in the United
States. Its fate was swift and terrible to behold.
Probably it deserved it at the
time. But it was not the basic idea that was faulty. It was the
presentation which suffered because the author lacked formal
training in certain fields that figure prominently in the thesis.
This I believe has now been corrected, and a fresh attempt to
communicate the central idea seems justified. One of the main
stumbling blocks to early acceptance has been thoroughly swept
away by subsequent research. In fact, the Canadian Government
was sufficiently impressed by the evidence to undertake to publish
for internal use a 250-page report on the matter,(1) which was then supplied
to a number of their research laboratories.
The thesis contains a simple concept,
the kind of concept which is either beautifully true and correspondingly
useful, or is bound to become self-evidently false and will simply
die a natural death. Every year supplies new evidence for the
essential truthfulness of it. Yet even if it should, after all,
prove to be mistaken, it can still be of real value as a working
hypothesis. It is not so much false theory as mistaken observation
of fact that is dangerous. Dr. A. Lewis (2) observed that history is filled

1 Custance, A. C., printed by the Government
under the title, "Does Science Transcend Culture?"
1958.
2 Lewis, Aubrey, Professor of Psychiatry, University of London,
in The Lancet, Jan. 25, 1958, p.171. He even quotes De
Morgan as saying, "Wrong hypotheses, rightly worked, have
produced more useful results than unguided observations."
E. R. Leach, "Primitive Time Reckoning," gives an excellent
illustration (vol.1 of A History of Technology, Oxford,
1954, p.111).

pg
2 of 6

with instances where
false theories proved fruitful because they stimulated the imagination
of competent people, who were then led to undertake further research
and purify the concept.
Now, it is obvious that in such
a wide ranging thesis as this turns out to be, there are bound
to be some errors in basic information, and personal bias is
almost certain to have coloured the selection of data, as well
as their interpretation. Neverthcless, while personal factors
are unavoidable, a very serious effort has been made to keep
close to the facts. Yet certain problems presented themselves
from the start, especially in the matter of terminology. For
example, it seems logical to call the descendants of Ham Hamites,
as the descendants of Shem are called Shemites. But the
term Hamitic has come to be applied by anthropologists
and ethnologists in a rather restricted way to a group of people
which it seems evident from Genesis 10 by no means now represents
all the nations that can with some justification be traced back
to Ham. So I have to remind the reader that I am reverting, in
my use of the terms Hamite and Hamitic, to their older and strictly
biblical meaning.
A second problem arises from the
current confusion of technology witll science, a confusion which
I feel has been very detrimental to our understanding of the
nature of each. James B. Conant has dealt excellently with this
in his little book On Understanding Science, (3) and many other writers
have underscored the fundamental distinction between the two
areas of human endeavour. Technology is directed towards the
solution of specific problems: what has been aptly termed "mission
oriented." Science, by contrast, is ideally concerned only
with understanding; the laws of nature, understanding for its
own sake rather than to make use of nature. Technology is often
a spin-off from scientific endeavour, but technology existed
for centuries and became highly developed in some countries where
science in the pure sense was not only of no interest, but was
essentially unknown at all. The Hamitic people have al1 been,
virtually without exception, technologically oriented and extremely
adept, whetlher highly civilized or very primitive. Japhethites,
or Indo-Europeans, have essentially carried the torch of pure
science.
The reader is urged to keep this
distinction between technology, which is applied to practical
ends, and science, which is

directed toward intellectual
satisfaction, constantly in mind throughout the followillg five
Papers.
This is a study of the contribution
to civilization made by the descendants of the three sons of
Noah: Shem, Ham, and Japheth. My basic thesis is that the tenth
chapter of' Genesis, thc oldest Table of Nations in existence,
is a completely authentic statement of how the present world
population originated and spread after the Flood in the three
families headed respectively by Shem, Ham, and Japheth. I further
propose that a kind of division of responsibilities to care for
the specific needs of man at three fundamental levels -- the
spiritual, the physical, and the intellectual -- was divinely
appointed to each of these three branches of Noah's family. History
subsequently bears out this thesis in a remarkable way. .Scripture
itself clearly takes this into account and makes consistent allowance
for it, even in respect to one notable exception which wil1 be
considered in due course. The interaction of these contributions
has at times wholly obliterated their specific nature, but a
discerning view of history permits us to identify each stream,
so that although the currents mingle quite freely, careful analysis
can often still separate thern, allowing each to be traced back
to its individual source. Rightly understood, the thesis is a
key that proves to be an exciting tool of research into the spiritual,
the technological, and the intellectual history of mankind since
the Flood.
Whether this thesis receives a favourable
hearing or not will depend to a large extent on the attitude
of the reader towards Scripture. This is particluarly true, for
example, on whether one takes the genealogy of Nations, given
in Genesis 10, at its face value. If this Table is a historically
trustworthy document and its generalized conclusions are valid
(particularly the universality of verse 32), then it is clear
that the present population of the world has been derived from
the eight souls who survived the Flood, and can be grouped together
under three family heaclings: Shemites or Semites, Japhethites
or Indo-Europeans, and Hamites. No people exist or have existcd
anywhere in the world since the Flood who are not members of
one of tlhese three family groupings. The second Paper examines
this point.
With this settled, the Semites are not
difficult to identify. The lndo-Europeans, or Japhethites, also
seem clearly to be a related family of people. The balance of
mankind, in short what might comprehensively be referred to as
"the coloured races,"

pg.4
of 6

must then be members
of the third family group, the Hamites. And by coloured races
I have in mind simply al1 those who would not in common parlance
list themselves under the heafing, "The White Man."
It is at this point, probably,
that the most violent exception to the thesis of these Papers
will be taken, since it is not customary to lump together such
peoples as the Mongoloids and thc Negroids. It is more usual
to set forth the racial divisions of mankind as being Caucasian,
Mongoloid, and I\ egroid. The Semitic people are seldom singled
out as a race (or stock). There are good reasons for this reluctance
since racial mixture, especially in Europe, has proceeded so
far that an attempt to classify a segment of the population such
as the Jewish people, along racial lines is not considered possible.
It sometimes helps however, to
stand back from a situation and view it over-simply. Almost al1
philosophies of history do this, and for many people some kind
of philosophy of history seems essential. Such pcople create
patterns because their minds work that way, and thus they satisfy
a need to assure themselves that there is some meaning to life
as a whole. These imposed, or discovered, patterns can be highly
stimulating, and as long as it is recognized that a particular
view is to some extent a mental creation which inevitably reflects
the bias of the originator, not too much harm wil1 be done. Those
who are horrified at such ethnological over-simplification as
we are proposing may find some comfort in the knowledge that
the author is keenly aware of the extent to which this thesis
cuts across pretty well-established orthodoxies of modern anthropological
opinion.
An extensive study of the identification
of all the names listed in Genesis 10 will be foind as the second
Paper in this volume. It may be said in anticipation that the
Semites would include such people as the Jews, the Arabs, certain
people in Asia Minor, and the ancient Babylonians and Assyrians.
The Japhethites would inclulde the Indo-Europeans who, although
now strictly denominated by their languages, seem for the most
part to have preserved a certain racial character in spite of
considerable mixture with Semites and Hamites. The Hamites, according
to my thesis, include virtually all the people who in ancient
tirnes were the originators and creators of civilization in both
the Old and the New World. It is this fact, for which we now
have massive evidence, that comes as such a surprise to most
Indo-European readers, and which, in the words of one high

pg.5
of 6

Canadian Government authority,
came almost as a "revelation." Out of Ham have been
derived all the so-called coloured races -- the "yellow,"
"red," "brown," and "black" --
the Mongoloid and the Negroid. Their contribution to human civilization
in so far as it has to do with technology has been absolutely
unsurpassed. The contribution of Japheth has, by contrast, been
essentially in the realm of thought. The contribution of Shem,
in terms both of true and false religious conceptions, has been
in the realm of the spirit. Where Japheth has applied his philosophical
genius to the technological genius of Ham, science has emerged.
Where Japheth has applied his philosopllical genius to the spiritual
insights of Shem, Theology has emerged. The interaction of these
three contributions is the theme of history. Human potential
reaches its climax when all three brothers (in their descendants)
jointly make their common contribution with maximum effectiveness.
These are brash statements as they
stand, but the remarkable thing is that they can be substantiated
to a degree quite unsuspected by most students of history up
to the present time.

Let us turn, then,
to Scripture itself in order to examine to what extent the continuance
of the threefold division of mankind, which originated with Shem,
Ham, and Japheth, was subsequently preserved throughout the historical
period covered by the biblical record.